05A20925
08-23-2002
Verne Hall v. Department of the Navy
05A20925
August 23, 2002
.
Verne Hall,
Complainant,
v.
Gordon R. England,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 05A20925
Appeal No. 01A01359
Agency Nos. DON-97-67001-NO 2
DON-97-67001-NO 5
DON-97-67001-NO 8
Hearing Nos. 140-98-8358X
140-99-8111X
140-99-8178X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 1, 2002, Verne Hall (complainant) timely initiated a request
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to
reconsider the decision in Verne Hall v. Department of the Navy, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A01359 (May 29, 2002). EEOC Regulations provide that the
Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission
decision where the requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law; or (2) the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on
the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b).
Complainant filed three EEO complaints alleging discrimination and
harassment on the bases of race (Black), sex (female), disability
(irritable bowel syndrome and job related stress), and reprisal (prior
Title VII activity). The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) conducted a
hearing on the consolidated complaints. Following the hearing, the AJ
issued a decision finding that complainant failed to establish her claims
of disparate treatment and harassment. As to the claim of harassment, the
AJ determined that complainant not did not show that the alleged incidents
of harassment were because of her race, sex, alleged disability, and/or
prior EEO activity. Further, as to the claim of disparate treatment,
the AJ concluded that complainant did not establish that the agency
took any of the alleged actions based upon discriminatory factors.
The agency's final decision adopted the AJ's conclusions. The previous
decision reviewed the record and found that it supported the AJ's finding
that discrimination had not been proven.
It is from this decision complainant requests reconsideration. In her
request, complainant claims that the previous decision overruled the
Commission's decision in Hall v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request
No. 05980370 (April 27, 2001) denying reconsideration EEOC Appeal
No. 01971863 (January 7, 1998). She also argues that the previous
decision erroneously contained the following statement, "For the purposes
of analysis, we shall assume the complainant has established that she
is an individual with a disability." Complainant contends that such a
statement could jeopardize her future employment opportunities.
Upon review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request
fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). Complainant does
not establish that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law or that the previous decision will
have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of
the agency. Complainant's claim that the previous decision overruled
the Commission's decisions in EEOC Request No. 05980370 and EEOC Appeal
No. 01971836 is not substantiated. The Commission's decisions in EEOC
Request No. 05980370 and EEOC Appeal No. 01971836 reversed the agency's
procedural dismissal of her complaint, namely Agency No. DON-97-67001-NO2,
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), and found that complainant
stated an actionable claim of harassment. In the previous decision,
the Commission addressed the merits of complainant's claim of harassment
finding that she failed to establish that the alleged unlawful harassment
occurred. Accordingly, we find no conflict between the decisions.
Further, as to complainant's concern regarding the previous decision's
disability statement, we note that the previous decision did not determine
whether or not complainant is an individual with a disability as alleged
in her complaints. The previous decision merely stated that coverage
under the Rehabilitation was assumed, without finding, solely for the
purposes of analysis. Therefore, we find no merit to complainant's
concern regarding the statement.
Upon review, it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request.
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A01359 remains the Commission's final
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the
decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the
right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District
Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this
decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in
the complaint the person who is the official agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title.
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the
local office, facility or department in which you work.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 23, 2002
__________________
Date